Ok, now that the fundraising silliness is over, let's go back to discussing the race. What is behind the Edwards boomlet? I'm not sure, but I'm not chalking it up to his wife's cancer. That seems to be a good reason to look at Edwards again as he was featured in the media, but it's not a reason to choose Edwards over Obama. So what exactly is going on? I can't definitely say, but my guess is that some of what's going on has to do with Obama's internal contradictions. This is Mr. New Politics.
And yet, remember this?
"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee, that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Mr. Obama said."There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers," he told ABC's This Week.
What about this?
"I don't think in ideological terms. I never have," Obama said, continuing on the healthcare theme. "Everybody who supports single-payer healthcare says, `Look at all this money we would be saving from insurance and paperwork.' That represents 1 million, 2 million, 3 million jobs of people who are working at Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser or other places. What are we doing with them? Where are we employing them?"
Or this?
If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.
Obama has a compelling message centering on change and a new way of doing politics. It's very very powerful because what he says touches on the notion of what many Americans think, that politics is broken. This resonance works on the right, in the center, and on the left as well. Lieberman's whole message in Connecticut in the general - and it worked - was about change. He represented himself as the person who could get beyond partisanship and fix the problems in DC by bringing a new political attitude. This worked with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It was a real message, expressing the dissatisfaction that Connecticut voters felt with the status quo, but delivered safely, by a messenger they knew and trusted.
The only candidate on the Democratic side who is a comfortable messenger is Hillary Clinton. She's got a very strong organization, she's trusted by the Democratic base, and she is seen as capable of beating back the right. Now I don't support Clinton, and I believe that Senator Clinton's position on Iraq is flawed and dishonest. But the point is that if anyone is going to successfully pursue a strategy of 'new politics' rhetoric without challenging any real power structures, it's going to be Clinton. The others can't use that channel, since they are newer.
This means that strategically, there are other avenues open to them. Obama and Edwards must challenge the political system by taking on specific obstacles and fighting against them, and if necessary, losing. 'This is what would have happened if I were in charge' is a message that works for someone who is new. The worst of all worlds for a neophyte is to put forth rhetoric promising change, yet to adhere to the status quo. This is why Clinton's awful Iraq positioning isn't really hurting her, since it isn't being exploited. Obama in particular is refusing to lead on Iraq, preferring to argue that his one moment of judgment years ago is a good enough reason to trust him now. I do believe that Obama's decision years ago was incredibly brave, but it's not enough anymore. Either Edwards or Obama must use the JFK strategy, of America as a can-do country that should put a new generation in charge. That's what Edwards is sort of moving towards, and it's starting to work even without media attention.
Still, the Democratic base does not trust Obama or Edwards to change this country's direction. And while I'm warming up to Edwards because he is willing to take on entrenched power in the form of Fox News, I have to say, I don't trust either of them yet. Obama in particular is just not there in any respect. He has a habit of doing nothing and whining about it, as he did repeatedly throughout his Senate term when asked why he had done nothing in the Senate. 'I'm just a freshman' he would argue. And then at the recent Presidential health care forum, his excuse was something along the lines of 'My campaign is eight weeks old'. I spoke to some union officials who were there, and they were insulted by this. On Alito, he was downright awful. On Fox News, he has been nowhere. And on Iraq funding, he has been counterproductive. In other words, he talks about how Washington is broken, about the small-mindedness of DC thinking, about the need for freshness, and then at every point when it counts, he sides with the DC establishment.
I'm not of course talking about his voting record or his time in the Illinois legislature, which were fairly liberal and where he usefully made change at the margins. I'm talking meat and potatoes, let's change the system put up or shut up time. And he's just never there. This has opened up room for Edwards, who, while not as skilled as Obama, is willing to actively advocate for political change. Does he mean it? I don't know, as I was shocked by his stance on Iran. But it's working, and the polls are keeping him stubbornly in the race, as is his impressive for the web traffic fundraising.
Senator Clinton is very strong, and she's proven that she can win a bar fight with the right. She's moving to a good place on trade and health care, both of which were her weak points among progressives. She's knowledgeable and impressive in person, and has a very competent team around her. She's planning on perpetual war, but apparently progressive elites have decided that keeping troops Iraq forever is not worth criticism or debate, since no one is really any different on this. This machine is what progressive activists, and Edwards and Obama are up against. It's very powerful. And so far, the Obama strategy of not challenging power structures is working to collect lots of money and push him up in the polls. But when that first negative ad hits, when he's smacked for caving to special interests or trying to have it both ways on Iraq, will he have the credibility to say that this is just the old way of doing politics? I don't know. But so far, the Democratic base is saying 'Why should I trust this guy?'. And he hasn't given us a good answer.
He could. He could drop out of the Fox News CBCi debate. He could lead on Iraq. He could call for a return to the public of the public airwaves, and criticize Kevin Martin's FCC and media consolidation. He could embrace Al Gore's idea of replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax. He could call for an end to the war on terror and/or the war on drugs. He could ask a million young people to register to vote to push the old interests out of the way, and put up a counter on his website. He could call for punitive measures on CEOs of companies that damage the environment. There are many transformational 'bar fight' moments he could embrace. It's incumbent upon all Obama supporters to push him to do any of these things, so that he has a chance to become President and change the country. This country is crying out for change, and it's up to us to push our candidates to deliver it.
We didn't do that in 2000 and 2004, and look where it got us.
UPDATE AT 1:46: Well looks like we'll see what he's made of. Here's the first RNC attack sheet blasting him for lies. Of course they are mostly nonsense. I think he should swat this effectively away, but they are laying down markers to use later. Obama can make his move at any point.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 173 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
